True Bypass Pros/Cons or My Bypass is Better Than Yours

[mictester]

Why do you want to remove the FET switching? It gives reliable, silent switching, and costs much less than a good quality hardware footswitch!

When I'm building effects, I always use electronic switching of one sort or another - usually based on the 4066.

[DrNomis]

Why do you want to remove the FET switching? It gives reliable, silent switching, and costs much less than a good quality hardware footswitch!

When I'm building effects, I always use electronic switching of one sort or another - usually based on the 4066.

Probably converting it to true bypass...

[clubsprint]

Why do you want to remove the FET switching? It gives reliable, silent switching, and costs much less than a good quality hardware footswitch!

When I'm building effects, I always use electronic switching of one sort or another - usually based on the 4066.

Probably converting it to true bypass...

On the money

[okgb]

True bypass for power loss [ and minimal circuitry ] is not
a bad idea , I'd like the confirmation of this too
if the more knowledgable ones can speak up

[ although mictester is smart too ]
and 3.25 for a 3pdt is not soo bad

tia & regards Greg

[mictester]

True bypass for power loss [ and minimal circuitry ] is not
a bad idea , I'd like the confirmation of this too
if the more knowledgable ones can speak up

[ although mictester is smart too ]
and 3.25 for a 3pdt is not soo bad

tia & regards Greg

The only advantage of "true bypass" is that it will pass a signal with a dead battery! The switches that are used these days are too fragile for stage use, and £3.25 is about £2.75 more expensive than the electronic bypass option! The advantages of electronic bypass far outweigh the need for fragile switches.... I use a simple (but reliable) bistable circuit (usually based on a 4013) to drive 4066 gates. I use buffering and get a full frequency response at low noise and low impedance so that there are no cable losses and less tendency to pick up noise along the way.

When the Tubescreamer and a number of other similar products were designed, there was long and hard discussion about the merits of "true bypass". It was decided that the effects would be buffered and switched with FETs. It was an inspired decision in many ways!

[okgb]

3.25 U.S. from some sellers here

many of the clone pcbs are offered with no
electronic bypass , so 3pdt is easier in that case
and if we can get PTS
[ PURE TONE SNOB ] approval from Eric J
well , then surely we will play like him as well ? !

[Dirk_Hendrik]

When the Tubescreamer and a number of other similar products were designed, there was long and hard discussion about the merits of "true bypass". It was decided that the effects would be buffered and switched with FETs. It was an inspired decision in many ways!

You're making this up yourself?
When the TS and similar products were developed the whole stompbox platform came from a 1pdt or 2pdt platform where usually the output jack was switched. Although long in existence the TB hype is only some 10-12 years old and mainly fueled by boohteek bobs (to use your own therminology) and internet purists.

One can discuss long on the merits of TB but by far the most common reason for using it (though never admitted) is to keep that circuit simple. Electronic bypass means the circuit often doubles in components and therefore is, on a difficulty scale, a bridge too far for many.

I cannot agree on the fragile remark for the cheap switches. They're sold in huge quantities and the reports of them breaking are relatively few.

Why was FET switching developed then?
To get rid of switshes vulnerable to dust and to be rid, once and for all, of switching noise, regardless of the quality of the other pedals in the chain. Which is an inspired desicion indeed.

[DougH]

Why was FET switching developed then?
To get rid of switshes vulnerable to dust and to be rid, once and for all, of switching noise, regardless of the quality of the other pedals in the chain. Which is an inspired desicion indeed.

Also, I'm guessing momentary switches and active circuitry are (were?) less expensive than DPDT (now 3pdt) mechanical switches (which were originally designed for power switching).

In the end, use what you like and are comfortable with. Sometimes a buffer is a good and useful thing, sometimes it's not. There's no one set 'correct' way- it depends on your circumstances and what you're trying to do. You can always find an exception to "why you should/shouldn't" either way. In any case, the "to true-bypass or not" argument is extremely old, banal, and played at this point. Not really worth repeating here.

[Hides-His-Eyes]

And let's be realistic when comparing prices here; an actuator costs more than 50p alone, and most of us aren't using custom PCBs with metal standoffs for every pedal; what we'd therefore need is a momentary footswitch, which are cheaper than 3PDTs (and more reliable) but only just.

The decision shouldn't be financial.

[clubsprint]

Why do you want to remove the FET switching? It gives reliable, silent switching, and costs much less than a good quality hardware footswitch!

When I'm building effects, I always use electronic switching of one sort or another - usually based on the 4066.

Yeah, good on ya (Australian for "whatever"), thanks for your input but you really didn't answer the
question did you? You could start another thread or add to this one
here viewtopic.php?uid=3996&f=48&t=394&start=0
if you've got a "true bypass" agenda to push.

[DrNomis]

Why do you want to remove the FET switching? It gives reliable, silent switching, and costs much less than a good quality hardware footswitch!

When I'm building effects, I always use electronic switching of one sort or another - usually based on the 4066.

Yeah, good on ya (Australian for "whatever"), thanks for your input but you really didn't answer the
question did you? You could start another thread or add to this one
here viewtopic.php?uid=3996&f=48&t=394&start=0
if you've got a "true bypass" agenda to push.

Well,I tend to use True-Bypass in all my pedal builds,since it is easiest for me to implement,yes it does require a bit of extra wiring,and a mechanical footswitch that can be unreliable,but I have only had 1 3PDT footswitch fail on me,and that was when I overheated the solder lugs,I have never had a single one of them fail in a gigging situation....

My philosophy is,use whichever method that seems to work for You,since You are building a pedal for yourself,it is going to be your pedal,so why not personalize it?....

[RnFR]

topic split. try to stay on topic folks, it's a real pain in the ass to split, rename, and merge posts to their proper place. if it's that important, you can always start a new topic and link to it.

[mictester]

When the Tubescreamer and a number of other similar products were designed, there was long and hard discussion about the merits of "true bypass". It was decided that the effects would be buffered and switched with FETs. It was an inspired decision in many ways!

You're making this up yourself?

Not at all. I can remember the discussions at Maxon at the time. They wanted to use the single pole push switches that they had millions of (and cost nothing), and realised that transistor buffering and FETs would give a reliable and cheap way of switching effects. It would also give the high input and low output impedance that's ideal for effects too.

The Boss / Maxon way of doing things has been adopted by almost all manufacturers apart from the Boutique guys who think that their inability to get a simple electronic switching circuit to work can be mitigated by using a fragile footswitch - and then they try to sell it as a benefit! Great marketing!

[DrNomis]

When the Tubescreamer and a number of other similar products were designed, there was long and hard discussion about the merits of "true bypass". It was decided that the effects would be buffered and switched with FETs. It was an inspired decision in many ways!

You're making this up yourself?

Not at all. I can remember the discussions at Maxon at the time. They wanted to use the single pole push switches that they had millions of (and cost nothing), and realised that transistor buffering and FETs would give a reliable and cheap way of switching effects. It would also give the high input and low output impedance that's ideal for effects too.

The Boss / Maxon way of doing things has been adopted by almost all manufacturers apart from the Boutique guys who think that their inability to get a simple electronic switching circuit to work can be mitigated by using a fragile footswitch - and then they try to sell it as a benefit! Great marketing!

That's something I didn't know,I guess you learn something new every day,I've just started doing a web search for guitar tab for the Venture's instrumental song "The 2000 Lb Bee"....

[mictester]

The decision shouldn't be financial.

Maybe not, but that's actually what happened. Maxon also had a case design that was best suited for a momentary push switch, and was cheap to manufacture. The by-product of this design decision was a sensible impedance input and output, which would allow the connection of long output cables or additional effects (a low impedance will happily drive into a high impedance load), and could be connected directly to a guitar without loading the pick-ups. The switching is also silent (it actually is quite "soft" switching), and the little switches they chose (actually designed for keyboards) would last very well, and cost pennies.

The Tubescreamer used to cost <$1.20 at the manufacturing stage, including the case, battery clip, knobs and the cardboard box that it was wrapped in! A "proper" footswitch would have added (in those days) about $0.60 extra, which was obviously an unacceptable increase in price.

Other effects can also be switched in the same way, and parameter switching can also be achieved on more complicated pedals, too. This switching design has been applied for almost 35 years now - you can be assured that if there was something better or cheaper, the highly pragmatic designers in the far East would have adopted it by now!

[Hides-His-Eyes]

The decision shouldn't be financial.

Maybe not, but that's actually what happened. Maxon also had a case design that was best suited for a momentary push switch, and was cheap to manufacture. The by-product of this design decision was a sensible impedance input and output, which would allow the connection of long output cables or additional effects (a low impedance will happily drive into a high impedance load), and could be connected directly to a guitar without loading the pick-ups. The switching is also silent (it actually is quite "soft" switching), and the little switches they chose (actually designed for keyboards) would last very well, and cost pennies.

The Tubescreamer used to cost <$1.20 at the manufacturing stage, including the case, battery clip, knobs and the cardboard box that it was wrapped in! A "proper" footswitch would have added (in those days) about $0.60 extra, which was obviously an unacceptable increase in price.

Other effects can also be switched in the same way, and parameter switching can also be achieved on more complicated pedals, too. This switching design has been applied for almost 35 years now - you can be assured that if there was something better or cheaper, the highly pragmatic designers in the far East would have adopted it by now!

If you read what I said, you'd see I wasn't trying to give advice to Boss or Ibanez Corporation (who I'm sure are quite capable of doing costing) but to people building at home, for whom there is little chance that electronic switching will be cheaper. I don't know about you but I'm not really in a position to get boxes cast for my home builds, so if I want to use tiny little momentary switches (which we know DO fail, because people post here asking how to fix it sometimes; probably far fewer failures than 3PDT but let's be honest here; unless you're using £7+ vandalproof switches, the mechanical connection between circuit and human is always the weak link) I'd also have to get boards fabbed and find an effective way to use standoffs. So if I want to do electrical switching, it has to be with momentary panel mount footswitches, which start at £1.65 on rapid; then two logic ICs and, say, a handful of boards from a cheap fab because if I was going to go this route I'd probably do that. I think that by this point, electronic switching and 3PDTs would both cost about the same at around £2.50 (probably more depending on the boards for the electronic switching), at which point one should decide on which will be more effective for the application and not decide based on cost.

So I do not feel that DIYers should use electronic switching to save money, because it doesn't, at our scales. Where appropriate (Eg if they're making 10 and getting boards made/making boards themselves) it's well worth considering, but what's cheaper for Maxon is not necessarily cheaper for most of us.

Now, should the guy convert his tubescreamer pedal to true bypass? Probably not. Should we all be using electronic switching for one off vero projects in hammond cases? Probably not.

[PokeyPete]

As my desire for versatility grew, so did the size of my pedalboard. An obvious problem arose. Incompatibility
Some pedals don't play nice with others. I was forced to invent the s/r unit. (Well, I probably didn't invent it, but
I was forced to adopt the principle). Putting most (if not all) 'buffered' pedals in send/return loops, seemed to
resolve my issues Buffered pedals may have their place, but in a large string of pedals....TP is the way to go.

[timbo_93631]

The reason to use a 3PDT is because it is simple and easy. And if it goes bad, replace it! I use Cliff 3PDT's and have never had a problem. I heatsink all switches, transistors, and pots when I build too. Recently I found out that it is possible to use a 3PDT in a DS-1 enclosure that I gutted and repurposed for something that actually sounds good. BTW anyone want some DS-1 guts?

[Hides-His-Eyes]

As my desire for versatility grew, so did the size of my pedalboard. An obvious problem arose. Incompatibility
Some pedals don't play nice with others. I was forced to invent the s/r unit. (Well, I probably didn't invent it, but
I was forced to adopt the principle). Putting most (if not all) 'buffered' pedals in send/return loops, seemed to
resolve my issues Buffered pedals may have their place, but in a large string of pedals....TP is the way to go.

It's funny you should say that actually; buffering the troublesome pedals would also solve the problem From your point of view the buffered pedals are the problem but objectively it's the affected pedal's fault!

There's an interesting thread knocking about in which some of the users on this forum work out some effective ways of buffering the Fuzz Face so that it plays nice with other pedals.

[Dirk_Hendrik]

actually designed for keyboards

....

Final conclusion after wondrin for a couple of months,

Mictester is full of bollocks and every post he makes claiminfg (and always without a clear source) should be considered doubtfull.

Huh?
Whatever type of switch used in Maxon products can be found in far larger scale in standard connsumer electronics like VCR's amplifiers etc etc. That's what switches are developed for. High volume stuff. Small manufacturers like Maxon choose these from the catalog. No use wasting money on a custom switch when that same money can be spend on asic's like the excellent MC4xxx chips they did.

prime example of blabla bullshit